STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

FIRST APPEAL NO. 20 / 2018

1. Commercial Toyota

Bareilly Road, Haldwani

2. Commercial Toyota

Randhawa Complex, Nainital Road

Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar

…… Appellants / Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3

Versus

1. Sh. Daljit Singh S/o Sh. Dildar Singh

R/o House No. 128, Sanjay Nagar

Ward No. 7, Vikrampur

Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar

…… Respondent No. 1 / Complainant

2. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.

Registered Office at Plot No. 1, Bidadi Industrial Area

Bidadi, Ramanagara District

Karnataka

…… Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2

Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellants

Sh. M.M. Lamba, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1

Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2

AND

FIRST APPEAL NO. 25 / 2018

Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.

Registered Office at Plot No. 1, Bidadi Industrial Area

Bidadi, Ramanagara District

Karnataka

…… Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2

Versus

1. Sh. Daljit Singh S/o Sh. Dildar Singh

R/o House No. 128, Sanjay Nagar

Ward No. 7, Vikrampur

Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar

…… Respondent No. 1 / Complainant

2. Commercial Toyota

Bareilly Road, Haldwani

3. Commercial Toyota

Randhawa Complex, Nainital Road

Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar

…… Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 / Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3

Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

Sh. M.M. Lamba, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1

Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President

Mr. Balveer Prasad, H.J.S.,

Member

Dated: 14/12/2018

ORDER

(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):

These two appeals, one by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 –

Commercial Toyota and another by opposite party No. 2 – Toyota

Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., filed under Section 15 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986, are directed against the order dated 09.02.2018

passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer

complaint No. 82 of 2015.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that being

attracted / influenced from the advertisements floated by the opposite

parties, the complainant had purchased Etios Liva VD-SP vehicle

bearing Chassis No. MBJK49BT600059846-0514 and Engine

No. IND-1367939 from opposite party No. 1 – Commercial Toyota,

Bareilly Road, Haldwani on 26.06.2014 for sum of Rs. 7,05,745/- vide

invoice No. B20140000077. After purchase of the vehicle, the

complainant applied with the Registering Authority for registration of

the subject vehicle within the stipulated period and attached the papers

supplied by the opposite party No. 1. The Assistant Regional

Transport Officer, Kashipur refused to register the vehicle and also

provide the number plate, on account of the reason that the model sold

by opposite party No. 1 and manufactured by opposite party No. 2,

has not been approved by the Govt. of India and, as such, the vehicle

is incapable of being registered. The complainant visited the opposite

party Nos. 1 and 3 located at Haldwani and Rudrapur respectively, but

till the date of filing of the consumer complaint, no document was

provided by them, on the basis of which, the registration certificate of

the vehicle and high security number plate could be procured. For

want of registration of the vehicle, the complainant could not properly

use the vehicle. By selling a vehicle to the complainant, which is

incapable of being registered, the opposite parties have committed

deficiency in service and have also resorted to unfair trade practice.

The complainant had purchased the vehicle after availing the finance

facility from ICICI bank and without use of the vehicle, he has been

levied with the interest liability. Thus, alleging deficiency in service

as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the

complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Distric

Click Here to Read the rest of this document